NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN: WALLACE LAKE, …

Department of Planning, Design and Natural Resources Department of Park OperationsDivision of Natural Resources Division of Outdoor EducationDivision of Planning Division of Parks

NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN: WALLACELAKE, MILL STREAM RUN RESERVATION

Cleveland Metroparks Technical Report 2010/NR-07

A young angler is observed by a red-eared slider at the 2009 Children’s Spring Fishing Derby at Wallace Lake (photo M. Durkalec).

Fred Rzepka, David W. Whitehead, Bruce Rinker Brian M. ZimmermanBoard of Park Commissioners Executive Director

Cleveland Metroparks4101 Fulton Parkway, Cleveland, Ohio 44114

Wallace Lake Management Plan 29 December 2010

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents.................................................................................................................2

List of Tables, Figures, and Appendices..............................................................................3

Executive Summary .............................................................................................................4

Historic Overview and Background.....................................................................................6

Water Quality Overview......................................................................................................7

Fisheries Resource Overview ..............................................................................................9

Other Recreational Uses ....................................................................................................16

Ecosystem Function Overview ..........................................................................................17

Current Fisheries Management ..........................................................................................18

Current Swimming and Paddleboat Area Management.....................................................20

Current Wildlife Habitat Management ..............................................................................22

Management Recommendations........................................................................................22

Literature Cited ..................................................................................................................25


3

LIST OF TABLES, FIGURES, AND APPENDICES

Tables

Table 1. Wallace Lake Annual Management Schedule .......................................................28

Table 2. Basic characteristics of largemouth bass and bluegill/pumpkinseed sunfish

populations based on 23 June 2010 assessment (sampling time = 110 minutes) ..................29

Table 3. Predator (largemouth bass) and prey (bluegill and pumpkinseed sunfish)

proportional stock density information..................................................................................29

Figures

Figure 1. Wallace Lake Sample Site Map ...........................................................................30

Figure 2. Length/Frequency of Largemouth Bass ...............................................................31

Figure 3. Length/Frequency of Bluegill and Pumpkinseed Sunfish .....................................31

Figure 4. Total Quality (TQ) Plot for Largemouth Bass (Predator) and

Bluegill/Pumpkinseed (Prey) .................................................................................................32

Appendices

Appendix A. 2010 Spring Childrens’ Fishing Derbies Statistics ........................................33

Appendix B. Fish Population Assessment Data Sheets 23 June 2010.................................35


4

Executive Summary

Wallace Lake is a 17.5 acre impoundment created from a former sandstone quarry

in 1941 and opened to public fishing in 1943. Since that time, the lake and surrounding

area has been an important recreation area in Cleveland Metroparks for fishing,

picnicking, swimming, boating, and open field recreational activities. The overarching

management goal of the lake is to maintain its “fishable/swimmable” status per Federal

Clean Water Act (CWA) objectives, which is accomplished through active management

activities focused on the fishery and swimming area of the lake (Table 1).

There are no known major water quality issues in the lake. An initial effort is

underway to delineate the extent, to be followed by characterization of the composition,

of stormwater run-off to the lake. Fecal coliform monitoring is performed four times a

week during the swimming season by the Cuyahoga County Board of Health, and in a

typical year, such as 2008, bacteria levels were within Bathing Beach Water Quality

Regulation limits approximately 95% of the time. The swimming area does have some

nuisance algae and aquatic vegetation growth, which is managed through chemical

treatments in the late spring/early summer. In summer 2010, a pilot project was initiated

using a microbial product to reduce the level of organic matter in the swimming area.

Evaluation of the efficacy of this method will be determined in the coming years.

Accumulation of excessive organic matter in the swimming area has historically been

addressed though seasonal drawdown of the lake during the peak of leaf fall in autumn.

The lake offers one of the most popular recreational fisheries in Cleveland

Metroparks. The fishery consists of a typical warmwater assemblage of fish consisting of

largemouth bass predators and a sunfish forage (prey) base, supplemented by annual


5

stocking of adult channel catfish (spring) and rainbow trout (winter and spring). There

are at least 23 species of fish known in the lake, most of which are not of primary interest

to anglers. Data collected in summer 2010 revealed that the lake appears to have an

imbalance in the predator/prey composition of the lake, with lower than ideal densities of

predatory largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) and a stunted population of bluegill

and pumpkinseed sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus and L..gibbosus) forage base, reflective

of “fair” and “poor to fair” quality fisheries, respectively. More stringent largemouth

bass regulations could be beneficial to the balance of the fish community of the lake, and

additional age analysis (via scale samples) are planned for summer of 2011 to further

clarify the situation before making any changes to the current regulation of 2 largemouth

bass >12” per angler/day. The rainbow trout (Oncorynchus mykiss) and channel catfish

(Ictalurus punctatus) fisheries of the lake would be characterized as “very good” and

“good”, respectively, due to annual stocking of these species in the lake and therefore

current regulations are considered effective for these species. No other fish species in the

lake are managed through bag or size regulations.

Although the lake is manmade, it does provide a secondary function as wildlife

habitat. Although no rare species are known to inhabit the lake or immediate surrounding

area, the lake does offer a typical urban lake assemblage of common waterfowl, wading

birds, reptiles, amphibians, invertebrates, and aquatic macrophytes. Successful efforts

were made in summers of 2009-10 to transplant native pickerelweed (Pontederia

cordata) and white water lily (Nymphaea odorata) to the shallow southern basin of the

lake to improve wildlife habitat, fish nursery habitat, and general aesthetics of this

otherwise un-colonized area of the lake.


6

Historic Overview and Background

Wallace Lake is a 17.5 acre impoundment which was created in 1941 through

construction of a raised spillbox which flooded two ends of a former sandstone quarry

(Figure 1). The spillbox was replaced with an all stainless steel structure approximately

10-12 years ago (Kevin Vinicky, Park Manager, personal communication). The two deep

quarry areas (historic maximum depth of 64’ at the south quarry, and 40’ at the north

quarry) are connected by a shallower, narrow channel with a maximum depth of

approximately 6 feet. It was recently observed that the deepest part of the south quarry of

the lake encountered with sonar on 23 June 2010 (during fish population sampling) was

only 26.3 feet (8.0 m), undoubtedly as a result of sediment inputs to the lake over the past

several decades (Figure 1). The lake is situated in a depression bordered to the north,

east, and south by parkland and to the west by a relatively steep hill and ridge leading to

residential yards adjacent to Prospect Road in Berea, Ohio. Despite intensive park

development, the lake retains a mostly scenic quality and is largely surrounded by tree

canopy (especially on the west bank) and mowed grass (mostly on the east bank).

In January 1943, based on a fish population survey of Wallace Lake, the

Cuyahoga County Conservation Committee of the Ohio Division of Conservation and

Natural Resources unanimously adopted a motion that the Cleveland Metropolitan Park

Board be petitioned to open public fishing on Wallace Lake (the Park District had

planned to keep the lake closed to fishing until 1944 to give the fish community a chance

to establish). As an interesting historic side note, the letter outlining this motion, dated

29 January 1943 and addressed to Park founder William Stinchcomb, states that opening

the lake would offer anglers “…a means to supplement steadily declining food supply


7

because of wartime. Relaxation from war strain would also be provided. Berea, being

close to this metropolitan county, can be reached by bus and many others would have a

sufficient supply of gasoline to make the trip by their automobiles”. And, of course, they

did come.

Ever since that time, the lake has been part of an intensively used recreation area

which features fishing, picnicking, swimming, boating, and open field recreational

activities, both organized and impromptu in nature. Activities are overall most intense

during the late spring through summer months.

The overarching goal for management of Wallace Lake is to maintain, and

improve where possible, the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the lake as

reflected in the national water quality objective as contained in the Federal Clean Water

Act (CWA). The CWA objective is often referred to as the “fishable/swimmable goal”,

and the foremost goal for the lake is its continued management as a fishing and

swimming area. This is currently conducted through management activities focused on

the fishery and swimming area of the lake, as will be outlined in this report (Table 1).

Water Quality Overview

Overall water quality is good for this lentic system given its location in an

otherwise urbanized area. The lake would be best characterized as eutrophic and receives

nutrient loading from adjacent watershed runoff, as well as from the waters of the East

Branch Rocky River (which is utilized seasonally to refill/replenish water to the lake as

necessary). Eutrophication is most reflected in the form of green algae and naiad growth

(Najas spp.) during the mid to late summer months. Nusiance algae and aquatic


8

macrophyte growth has been, and continues to be, treated with aquatic herbicides and

algaecides annually in and immediately adjacent to the swimming area. Seasonal water

transparency varies, being clearer during the colder seasons, due to seasonal variation in

phytoplankton and zooplankton communities in the lake (Wetzel 1983).

Fecal coliform bacteria in the swimming area have, historically, been within

primary public contact standards except following heavy rainfall inputs. In the past,

Cleveland Metroparks staff conducted this testing and culturing, but current testing is

administered by the Cuyahoga County Board of Health through their Bathing Beach

Monitoring Program. As a public beach, Wallace Lake is a considered a Tier 1 beach and

is therefore sampled 4 days a week, Monday through Thursday, during the swimming

recreational season (Memorial Day through Labor Day). In 2008, of 55 samplings

between 27 May and 28 August, bacteria levels only exceeded Bathing Beach Water

Quality Regulations limits on three occasions. Sampling results and advisories, when

administered, are posted on a sign at the swimming beach, as well as on the CCBH and

Cleveland Metroparks websites, although the public is still allowed to swim during these

instances at their own discretion.

An aging sanitary line from the Quarry Rock Café, immediately adjacent to

Wallace Lake, was replaced in 2008. This line may have formerly contributed fecal

coliform bacteria and nutrients to the lake for an undermined period of time.

Furthermore, a robust Canada goose (Branta canadensis) population on the lake

contributes further coliform bacteria and nutrients to the lake. The goose population has

been managed by the Natural Resource Area Manager (per ODNR guidelines) since 2002

in an effort to minimize this issue, especially in the swimming area at the lake.


9

There is no significant industry in the Wallace Lake sub-watershed to contribute

industrial pollutants. The lake is seasonally refilled using water from the East Branch of

the Rocky River and, according to the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, the

primary physical/chemical water quality concern in the stream is nutrients and fecal

coliform bacteria levels (Ohio EPA 1999). As already outlined, there is currently a

system in place to monitor fecal coliform counts in the lake. There are no other

exceedances of warm water habitat (WWH) physical/chemical criteria for the East

Branch of the Rocky River (Ohio EPA 1999). No further documentation of physical or

chemical water quality issues at the lake were found in Cleveland Metroparks historic

files.

Fisheries Resource Overview

Wallace Lake offers a typical fish assemblage for a small lake in Ohio.

Fish species of importance (albeit to varying degrees) to anglers include the largemouth

bass (Micropterus salmoides), white crappie (Pomoxis annularis), black crappie (P.

nigromaculatus), bluegill (Lepomis machrochirus), pumpkinseed sunfish (L. gibbosus),

warmouth sunfish (L. gulosis), green sunfish (L. cyanellus), channel catfish (Ictalurus

punctatus), bullhead catfishes (Ameriurus spp.), common carp (Cyprinus carpio), and

seasonally stocked rainbow trout (Onchorynchus mykiss). Other fish species known to be

present, but of lesser immediate interest to anglers, include the white sucker (Catostomus

commersoni), goldfish (Carassius auratus), gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum),

golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas), common shiner (Luxilus cornutus), spotfin

shiner (Notropis spilopterus), bluntnose minnow (Pimephales notatus), fathead minnow


10

(P. promelas), emerald shiner (Notropis atherinoides), and round goby (Neogobius

melanostomus). Sterile white amur (Ctenoparyngodon idella), commonly known as grass

carp, are also present in small numbers for supplemental vegetation control. Introduction

of some of these species, including the invasive exotic round goby, are likely a

combination of intrusion from inflow via the East Branch Rocky River, as well as

incidentally introductions from angler bait buckets. Although common carp and round

gobies can be invasive non-native species, neither currently comprise a predominant

component of the fish community in Wallace Lake.

The fish community composition, overall, is typical for a small Ohio lake in

excess of ten acres. Considering the perspective of being in a heavily utilized urban

setting, the fishery would be characterized overall as “very good” for seasonally stocked

rainbow trout and “good” for channel catfish (based on heavy stockings of these two

species), “fair” for largemouth bass (in terms of size and numbers), and “fair to poor” for

panfish species (which are fairly abundant, but tend to be stunted, in this lake) (Table 2,

Table 3, Figure 4). Other species would be characterized as incidental catches by the

majority of anglers who utilize the lake.

A basic cross section of the fish community is apparent every year during the

popular Spring Children’s Fishing Derby at the lake, which is typically attended by over

1,000 young anglers and basically serves as an annual fish survey. This event has drawn

large numbers of young anglers and their families for over a generation, and has notably

had successive record breaking crowds for the past five years (venue record of 1,736

attendees in at the 2010 event) (Appendix A). This is one measure illustrating the

popularity of Wallace Lake as a fisheries resource of the Park District.


11

The predominant year-round predator and prey species in Wallace Lake are

largemouth bass and bluegill sunfish. Properly managed ponds and small lakes can

harbor self-sustaining largemouth bass and bluegill populations (Austin el al.1996,

Carlander 1977), and to be effective in doing so accurate data is required on the

populations of these two species. Electrofishing is a well established method utilized by

fisheries managers to accurately assess fish population dynamics, abundance, and

structure (Neilsen and Johnson 1983, Reynolds 1993). In an effort to obtain more current

data on largemouth bass and bluegill dynamics in Wallace Lake, electrofishing was

performed on 23 June 2010 in two sampling runs totaling 110 minutes. Sample run 1

was conducted for 77 minutes along the more developed northeast shoreline and sample

run 2 was conducted for 33 minutes along the more natural west perimeter of Wallace

Lake (Figure 1). A Smith Root GPP 5.0 electrofishing unit and customized Alweld

commercial johnboat, including booms constructed by Ashcraft Machine and Supply,

Inc., of Newark, Ohio, were used. One person maneuvered the boat and operated the

electrofishing unit control box while two assistants collected stunned fish, which were

retained in an aerated 90 gallon onboard livewell for later processing. Fish lengths (mm)

were obtained using a custom measuring board and weights (g) were obtained using a

digital scale. Data was recorded onsite and all fish were released afterwards. Datasheets

from the sampling event are available in Appendix B.

Largemouth bass are the dominant year around predator in Wallace Lake and, as

such, have a marked influence over the fish community. Sampling yielded 64

largemouth bass weighing a total of 15.73 kg (34.7 lbs) (Table 2). Based on plotting

length against frequency, there appears to be six year classes of largemouth bass present


12

in the sample (Figure 1). It should be noted that the smallest size classes of bass are less

susceptible to electrofishing than larger specimens due to less surface area exposed to the

electrical field, hence their lower frequency in the sample. According to Hall (1986)

density of largemouth bass over 199 mm (stock size) in Ohio impoundments can be

correlated to electrofishing catch per hour, and the relationship is as follows:

Log 10Y=1.2274Log10X-0.5489

Where X = electrofishing catch of largemouth bass over 199 mm (7.83 inches) per hour

(CPH) and Y = number of largemouth bass over 199 mm per hectare. Wallace Lake, at

7.1 hectares (17.5 acres), yielded a CPH of 30.6 largemouth bass over 199 mm (56 bass

over 199 mm in 1.83 hours) which would indicate a largemouth bass density of 18.82 >

stock size bass per hectare (7.62 > stock size bass/acre) when Hall’s relationship is

applied. This would suggest a largemouth bass abundance of 133.6 > stock size fish

(18.82 > stock size bass per hectare x 7.1 hectares) weighing a total of 36.9 kg (133.6 fish

x 0.276 kg average weight of stock size bass), or 81.4 lbs, in Wallace Lake. This is a

very low bass density for an Ohio lake, considering that 50-75 stock size bass per acre is

recommended (William Lynch, Aquatic Ecosystem Management Program Specialist,

Ohio State University Extension, personal communication).

Also noteworthy was that while the overall bass catch per unit effort (CPUE) was

very similar when the more developed and easily accessible northeast side was compared

to the more natural/less developed and less accessible west side of the lake (56.4 and 60.1

bass/hr, respectively), the number of quality size bass of over 300 mm (11.81 inches)

(Gabelhouse 1983) was twice as high on the west versus northeast side of the lake (29.5%

versus 15.0% of the catch, respectively). Additionally, the only two preferred size class


13

fish over 380 mm (14.96 inches) (Gabelhouse 1983) were taken on the west side of the

lake. This is not surprising given the higher lever of fishing pressure that is apparent on

the most accessible northeast side of the lake.

Proportional stock density (PSD) of largemouth bass in the lake was calculated

using the following formula (Anderson 1976):

PSD(%)=(number>quality size/number>stock size)x100

Where “quality” and “stock” designations are as outlined in Gabelhouse 1984. PSD of

largemouth bass in the lake was on the low side at 28.6% (Table 3), as a PSD range

between 40-70 is indicative of balance when the population supports a substantial fishery

(Anderson 1980).

Relative weight (Wr) of individual fish was used as the metric to determine fish

condition and was calculated using the following formula:

Wr=(W/Ws)x100

Where W is the weight of a given fish and Ws for largemouth bass is calculated as such

(Wege and Anderson 1978, Anderson and Gutreuter 1983):

Log10Ws=-5.316+3.191Log10L

Where L = the length of the specimen in mm. Largemouth bass sampled from Wallace

Lake exhibited a mean Wr of 86.4 (Table 2) compared against the ideal Wr of 100. This

is typical for an Ohio lake and reflects a bass population in decent, but not great,

condition (Phil Hillman and Andy Burt, Ohio Division of Wildlife, personal

communications). This could be lower than normal for the lake, though, since relative

weight of largemouth bass in Ohio ponds was noted to be lower than normal during

summer 2010 due to high water temperatures that may have affected fish metabolism


14

adversely (William Lynch, Aquatic Ecosystem Management Program Specialist, Ohio

State University Extension, personal communication).

Bluegill and pumpkinseed sunfish are the among the dominant forage fish in

Wallace Lake. Sampling yielded 102 bluegill and pumpkinseed weighing a total of 3.93

kg (8.7 lbs) (Table 2). Based on plotting length against frequency, there appears to be

six year classes of bluegill/pumpkinseed sunfish in the sample (Figure 2). Note that the

smallest size classes of sunfish are less susceptible to electrofishing than larger specimens

due to less surface area exposed to the electric field, hence their lower frequency in the

sample. Proportional stock density (PSD) of bluegill was on the low side of the balanced

range at 21.5% (Table 3), since a PSD range between 20-40 is indicative of balance when

the population supports a substantial fishery (Anderson 1980). According to Novinger

and Legler (1978) density of bluegill in the 76-150 mm (3.0-5.9 inch) length range can be

correlated to density of largemouth bass 200-300 mm, and the relationship is as follows:

Y=3,185-1,436Log10X

Where Y = the abundance of 76-150 mm (2.99-5.91 inches) bluegill as thousands per

hundred pounds of population biomass and X = the number of bass 200-300 mm (7.87-

11.81 inches) per acre. The largemouth density calculated and presented in this paper

was 18.82 > stock size bass per hectare. Considering that 73.2% of the bass catch was in

the stock size range of 200-300 mm of those >200 mm, that percentage was extrapolated

to the calculated population density (13.78 stock size bass/ha, or 5.58 stock size

bass/acre). When this bass density is used in Novinger and Legler’s relationship,

abundance of bluegill in stock size range (76-150 mm) is predicted to be 2,113 thousand

per hundred pounds of population biomass. Given the modest size structure of the


15

Wallace Lake bluegill population, this relatively high bluegill density would be indicative

of overpopulation and stunting of this prey species (Andrew Burt, Ohio Division of

Wildlife Inland Fisheries Research Unit, personal communication).

Relative weight (Wr) of individual fish was used as the metric to determine fish

condition, and was calculated using the following formula, as outlined earlier, where Ws

specific for bluegill is calculated as(Wege and Anderson 1978, Anderson and Gutreuter

1983):

Log10Ws=-5.374+3.316Log10L

Where L = the length of the specimen in mm. Compared against the ideal Wr of 100,

bluegill sampled from Wallace Lake were in good condition for an Ohio lake, exhibiting

a mean Wr of 90.3 (Table 2) .

Balance within the fish community of Wallace Lake was assessed by analyzing

prey-predator ratios in this system. To determine overall status of largemouth bass and

bluegill dynamics in Wallace Lake a Total Quality (TQ) plot was constructed by plotting

a point that aligned with predator (largemouth bass) PSD on the X axis and prey

(bluegill) PSD on the Y axis (Figure 3). Gabelhouse (1984) determined that the PSD

ranges indicative of balance in a prey population is 20-40% and the PSD range indicative

of balance in a predator population is 40-60%, which are represented by dashed lines on

the TQ plot. The square formed by the intersection of the desired PSD ranges on the plot

is therefore representative of a state of mutual balance for predator and prey. The point

of intersection of the bass and bluegill PSDs for Wallace Lake is not within this range of

mutual balance, but instead lies very near the lower left grid of the plot. This would be

indicative of a largemouth bass predator population which is likely overfished and,


16

therefore, resulting in a stunted bluegill and pumpkinseed sunfish prey populations (Ney

1993).

It should be noted that the June 2010 fish sampling was performed during the

afternoon on a very hot (90 deg F) day. More quality size bass, in particular, would

likely have turned up in the sample if sampling was done closer to dawn or dusk. Several

studies have show that night sampling can be more effective (up to 5-10 times more so)

than daytime fishing in lakes, especially for larger predatory specimens such as

largemouth bass (Loeb 1958, Witt and Campbell 1959, Kirkland 1962, Smith-Root

2007). In the future, a follow-up sampling may be scheduled closer to dusk to address

this issue.

Other Recreational Uses

Wallace Lake is a popular summer location for swimmers and paddleboat rental

within a designated area. The lake is further utilized by small hand-powered watercraft

(no motors, even electric, are allowed) such as rowboats, kayaks, and canoes, mostly by

anglers. Cleveland Metroparks Water Safety Program, which manages the swimming

and rental boat facililities on the lake, reported an estimated 50,371 program attendees at

Wallace Lake last year, illustrating the popularity of swimming and paddleboat use at this

venue (Bixler 2009). A decline in recreational swimming in the lake over the past several

years has been noted, which may be due to turbid stain to the water, accumulation of

organic matter in the swimming area, and increase growth of vegetation and algae in and

around the swimming area, all of which are invariably related (C. Pofok, Aquatics

Facility Manager, personal communication).


17

Ecosystem Function Overview

Although Wallace Lake is not a natural lake, it does serve some general

ecosystem functions in the watershed. The basin collects stormwater from the

surrounding neighborhoods within the City of Berea, functionally serving as a buffer to

help mediate the affects of direct runoff into the East Branch of the Rocky River. A

number of associated aquatic wildlife, notably birds, utilize the lake. Great blue heron

(Ardea herodias), belted kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon), mallard duck (Anas platyrhynchos),

and Canada goose (Branta canadensis) are observed at the lake regularly by wildlife

watchers. On occasion, an osprey (Pandion haliaetus) may even be observed hunting the

lake for fish (personal experience). The lake is host to an assemblage of common reptiles

and amphibians, including eastern painted turtle (Chrysemys picta picta), snapping turtle

(Chelydra serpentina), red-eared slider (Trachemys scripta), green frog (Rana clamitans),

and bullfrog (R. catesbeiana). Other than occasional seasonal use by state listed

(threatened) migratory osprey, as already noted, no other known threatened or

endangered species, or even rare species, of flora or fauna are resident in the lake.

Although common dragonfly (suborder Anisoptera) and damselfly (suborder Zygoptera)

species can be observed utilizing the lake margin a regular basis, there is little

information collected on specific macroinvertebrate or microbial (other than fecal

coliform) communities within the lake. The vegetative/algal community of the lake is

comprised mainly of Najas spp., unicellular algaes, and some filamentous algae and

cyanobacteria. Pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata), arrowhead (Sagittaria latifolia),

white water lily (Nymphaea odorata), swamp loosestrife (Decodon verticillatus),

softstem bulrush (Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani), and floating leaf pondweed


18

(Potamogeton natans) are also present. A full inventory of aquatic plants at Wallace

Lake has not been undertaken so a number of other species are likely present, as well.

Current Fisheries Management

Wallace Lake is an actively managed fishery, and the urban nature of the waters

of Cleveland Metroparks, in general, require intensive management efforts which go

beyond traditional management approaches (Halko 1983). A bag limit of 3 rainbow trout

per angler per day (no size limit) and 2 largemouth bass of 12” or greater per angler per

day are in affect. There are no bag or size limit regulations on any other fish species in

the lake. As is the case with all Cleveland Metroparks waters, a valid Ohio fishing

license is required to fish Wallace Lake.

The Wallace Lake fish community is supplemented with annual scheduled, as

well as opportunistic, fish stocking activities. Stocking of species such as rainbow trout,

channel catfish, sunfish, and largemouth bass is a very common fisheries management

activity which has been shown to have a many of benefits to the public (DesJardine 1983,

Gordon 1983, Heidinger 1993, Manfredo et al. 1983, Norville 1961, Weithman 1993, ).

Catchable size rainbow trout have been stocked annually for over three decades from mid

to late winter to offer the most popular ice fishing opportunity in the Park District (Halko

1983). Approximately 1,800 pounds of trout are stocked in two installments, the first

typically right around Christmas followed by a second round in late January or early

February. Additionally, 800 pounds of rainbow trout and 500 pounds of farm raised

channel catfish are stocked annually in early May for the highly popular Children’s

Spring Fishing Derbies. The rainbow trout are offered as a seasonal cold-water fishery


19

which lasts until about mid-May most years, and the channel catfish hold over in the lake

from year to year. There is no evidence that channel catfish have reproduced naturally in

the lake which is typical in other similar bodies of water in Ohio (Austin et al. 1996).

Wallace Lake is also stocked with native warmwater species as opportunities

become available. Notably, in May 2008 approximately 2,000 sunfish, 250 largemouth

bass, and 10 white amur (grass carp) were transferred to Wallace Lake (of approximately

5,000 fish total distributed around the Park District) and in April and May 2009 a total of

approximately 500 sunfish, 50 largemouth bass, and 25 white crappie were transferred to

Wallace Lake (of approximately 4,500 fish total distributed around the Park District)1.

Warm water species are also transferred from other Cleveland Metroparks non-fishing

waters (such as golf course and nature center ponds) to public fishing waters, including

Wallace Lake, on a non-scheduled basis.

It has been noted by various fish managers that proper communication with the

public and the media is a powerful, and often underutilized, fisheries management tool

(Decker and Krueger 1993, Patterson 1983, Cohen et al. 2008). With this in mind,

information regarding fishing at Wallace Lake is disseminated through a number of

outlets, including; Cleveland Metroparks fishing booklet and trifold, in the popular online

fishing report on the Cleveland Metroparks website, through Cleveland Metroparks

Facebook page, in the Plain Dealer newspaper (typically in the Outdoors area of the

Sports section), and via a two panel informational kiosk about the Wallace Lake fishery

and its place in the watershed installed on the northeast end of the lake in 2008.

1 As donated to the Park District by Rick Huff, Site Construction, from his private lake and the CuyahogaValley National Park from Virginia Kendall Lake. Both lakes from which these fish originated requireddraining due to failure to meet ODNR dam requirements for small impoundments.


20

Fishing derbies are noted as an exceptionally effective way to offer fishing to the

urban public (Schedler and Haynes 1983, Lang et al. 2008). An annual and longstanding

fishing event is offered to the public in the form of the Spring Childrens Fishing Derby in

early to mid May..

Additionally, three fishing platforms, two of which are wheelchair accessible,

have been constructed along the east margin of the lake north of the swimming area to

facilitate fishing opportunities.

Current Swimming and Paddleboat Area Management

Nuisance vegetation and filamentous algae management is a routine management

practice at Wallace Lake in target areas to facilitate a more desirable swimming and

paddleboat experience. In recent years, this has entailed a two prong approach; first,

treating the lake in late May when the water temperature exceed 50 deg F (10 deg C) with

a combination herbicide/algaecide (such as RewardTM), followed by use of a chelated

copper sulfate algaecide (such as Cutrine PlusTM) approximately a week later. Algae

treatments are also conducted occasionally throughout the summer on an as needed basis.

In recent years, use of backpack sprayer units from a rowboat have served adequately as a

treatment method. Overall, this approach keeps nuisance growth in check in target areas,

yet allows the establishment of vegetative growth beneficial to the aquatic ecosystem

elsewhere in the lake. Supplemental biological control of vegetation occurs due to the

presence of the aforementioned herbivorous triploid white amur (sterile grass carp); ten

of which were released into the lake in May 2008. Overall, vegetative growth is not at


21

nuisance levels in the lake from an ecosystem or fisheries standpoint, but is in fact at

desirable levels.

In summer 2010 the Park Operations Aquatics Facility Manager initiated a pilot

“bio-dredging” project using a proprietary blend of naturally occurring microbes (bacteria

and protists) from Advanced Technical Aquatic Control, LLC, to reduce accumulation of

organic matter mixed into the sand within the swimming area. The product was

administered once a week during the swimming season. This method will likely require

routine treatments for a number of years to see a significant effect, but is still much less

expensive and less invasive than traditional dredging. The swimming area substrates will

be monitored during this period to determine efficacy. Once the microbial agents

perform their function they return to natural levels. If this method works satisfactorily, it

will be a routine tool with applicability not only at Wallace Lake, but throughout the Park

District. This product does not require a pesticide applicators license, as do the

herbicides and algaecides applied by Natural Resource Division staff.

As another means of controlling the accumulation of organic matter in the

swimming area, Park Management staff annually coordinate temporary seasonal

drawdown of the lake in fall, typically during the two week peak leaf fall period of late

October through early November. The assumption is that the lake is drawn down

approximately four feet below normal pool to leave the majority of the swimming area

out of water so that leaves accumulate primarily in deeper areas of the lake.


22

Current Wildlife Habitat Management

In June 2009 and 2010, a project was undertaken to facilitate greater colonization

of the shallow south end of Wallace Lake with desirable native aquatic macrophytes.

Although the substrate of much of the southern lake basin is largely bedrock, which is not

conducive to macrophytes growth, a growing silt bed with significant organic matter is

present at the far south end. Several dozen each of pickerelweed (P. cordata) and white

water lily (N. odorata) were transferred to this area in clusters in late June 2009, and have

taken hold such that they have come back thicker in early summer 2010. A similar

amount of additional pickerelweed was transplanted in June 2010. It is believed that in

the coming years this cluster of vegetation will continue to advance to a larger area of

suitable substrate in this portion of the lake basin, affording increased quantity and

quality of wildlife habitat for amphibians, waterbirds, and invertebrates, fish spawning

and nursery areas, and enhancing the aesthetics of the area.

Management Recommendations

The aforementioned routine active management techniques have all had desirable

effects on the Wallace Lake system from a recreational and ecosystem perspective and

will therefore be continued into the future. There are some activities still under

evaluation, though, as well as some recommendations based on recently collected data

and known issues at Wallace Lake, as discussed below.

The bio-dredging method efficacy will become apparent within the next year or

two, as the Aquatics Facility Manger determines whether the level of organic muck


23

mixed with the sand in the swimming area is being reduced. Its place in the future

management of Wallace Lake will determined at that time.

Stormwater inputs to Wallace Lake are present, but likely not increasing, due to

nearly maximum development of the area outside the Park District within its

subwatershed. Still, further assessment of stormwater inputs to the lake need to be

conducted in the future. Most immediately, stormwater inputs to the lake need to be

inventoried and mapped, in terms of outfall locations and “sewershed” (stormwater

drainage basin). An initial effort to compile available resources necessary to map

stormwater drainage to the lake is underway (Stephen Mather, GIS Manager, personal

communication). After this is completed, hydrology and chemical/physical

characteristics of the stormwater need to be assessed to determine if any water quality

issues are present. The final step would be mediation of any significant stormwater

impacts in the watershed. Also noteworthy is that Berea is within the service area

boundary of the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District (NEORSD). If NEORSD

becomes the stormwater utility in the region in the coming years, as is currently being

proposed, this will offer a wealth of resources to conduct the investigative tasks outlined

above, as well as to take appropriate corrective actions for any issues identified.

Further enhancement of the Wallace Lake fishery could be facilitated by purchase

and stocking of native warm water fish species in the future, as detailed in a request to the

Chief of Natural Resources dated 15 January 2008, although the electrofishing gear also

requested in that correspondence has since been acquired and has greatly enhanced

Cleveland Metroparks inhouse ability to collect and transfer desirable fish from non-

fishing resources to public fishing waters to facilitate fisheries improvements.


24

Based on initial data collection and analysis, it appears the fishery could also

potentially benefit from more restrictive largemouth bass regulations, such as a slot limit

(i.e.: requiring the immediate release of all bass between 12-15”) or an 18” minimum size

limit on these predators. To make a fully informed decision on this matter largemouth

bass growth and age data should also be collected (Phil Hillman, Ohio Division of

Wildlife Fish Management Supervisor, personal communication). To facilitate making a

decision regarding the suitability of current largemouth bass regulations at Wallace Lake,

collection of scale samples for aging will be planned for early summer 2011.

Improvement of the panfish population structure would occur, as well, from a balanced

largemouth bass predator population.

Increasing public education regarding introduction of aquatic invasive species

should also be a focus at Wallace Lake, as well as all other park waters. This issue is

noted in a bold red box on the onsite fishing kiosk, but needs to be part of a wider-

reaching campaign to be effective. Presence of round gobies and red-eared slider turtles

in the lake are testaments to the fact that human-introduced species have occurred in the

past at Wallace Lake and, although these have proven to have minimal impact on the

system thus far, another species could have more devastating affects.

The current overall assessment of Wallace Lake is that it fulfills its varied roles

within the Park District well and, therefore, does not require any drastic change in

management strategy. The lake continues to be a popular fishing and swimming

destination in the Park District. The management practices currently employed at the

lake, both new and historic, will therefore continue to be utilized and assessed

periodically in an adaptive approach to management of the Wallace Lake system.


25

Literature Cited

Anderson, R. O. 1976. Management of small warmwater impoundments. Fisheries(Bethesda) 1(6):5-7, 26-28.

Anderson, R. O. 1980. Proportional Stock Density (PSD) and Relative Weight (Wr):interpretive indices for fish populations and communities. Pages 27-33 in S.Gloss and B. Shupp, editors. Practical fisheries management: more with less inthe 1980’s. Proceedings of the American Fisheries Society, New York Chapter,Ithaca, New York.

Anderson, R. O., and S. J. Gutreuter. 1983. Length, weight, and associated structuralindices. Pages 283-300. in Neilsen and Johnson (1983).

Austin, M., Devine, H., Goedde, L., Greenlee, M., Hall, T., Johnson, L., and Moser, P.1996. Ohio Pond Management Handbook. Division of Wildlife, Ohio

Department of Natural Resources.

Bixler, R. 2009. 2009 Park District Visitation: Statistics on Visitors EnteringReservations, Recreational Visits, and Program & Facility Attendance. ClevelandMetroparks, Cleveland, Ohio.

Carlander, K. D. 1977. Handbook of Freshwater Fishery Biology, Volume 2. The IowaState University Press.

Cohen, M. K., Lee, N., Bruner, S., Nichol, M. and Guthrie, C. 2008. I FISH NY:Outreach and Education in New York City and on Long Island. Pages 305-310 inR. T. Eades, J. W. Neal, T. J. Lang, K. M. Hunt, and P. Pajak, editors. Urban andcommunity fisheries programs; development, management, and evaluation.American Fisheries Society, Symposium 67, Bethesda, Maryland.

Decker, D. J. and Krueger, C. C. 1993. Communication: Catalyst for Effective Fisheries Management. Pages 55-75 in Kohler and Hubert 1993.

DesJardine, R. L.. 1983. Fish Stocking, An Aspect of Urban Fisheries Management.Proceedings of the Urban Fishing Symposium of the Fisheries Management andFisheries Administrators sections of the American Fisheries Society. Pp. 118-131.

Eades, R. T., J. W. Neal, T. J. Lang, K. M. Hunt, and P. Pajak, editors. 2008. Urban andcommunity fisheries programs; development, management, and evaluation.American Fisheries Society, Syposium 67, Bethesda, Maryland.

Gabelhouse, D. W. Jr. 1984. A length categorization system to assess fish stocks. NorthAmerican Journal of Fisheries Management. 4:273-283.


26

Gordon, W. G. 1983. Promoting Urban Fishing Programs. Proceedings of the UrbanFishing Symposium of the Fisheries Management and Fisheries Administratorssections of the American Fisheries Society. Pp. 9-13.

Halko, K. A. 1983. Urban Fishing Programs in the Cleveland Metroparks. Proceedingsof the Urban Fishing Symposium of the Fisheries Management and FisheriesAdministrators sections of the American Fisheries Society. Pg. 297.

Hall, T. J. 1986. Electrofishing catch per unit hour as an indicator of largemouth bassdensity in Ohio impoundments. North American Journal of FisheriesManagement 8:139-141.

Heidinger, R. C. 1993. Stocking for Sport Fisheries Enhancement. Pages 309-333in Kohler and Hubert 1993.

Kirkland, L. 1962. A tagging experiment on spotted and largemouth bass using anelectric shocker and the Petersen disc tag. Proceedings of the SoutheasternAssociation of Game and Fish Commissioners 16:424-432.

Kohler, C. C. and Hubert, W. A. 1993. Inland Fisheries Management in North America.American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Lang, T. J., J. W. Neal, and C. P. Hutt. 2008. Influence of fishing derbies on AnglingActivity at Derby Locations. Pages 367-378 in R. T. Eades, J. W. Neal, T. J.Lang, K. M. Hunt, and P. Pajak, editors. Urban and community fisheriesprograms; development, management, and evaluation. American FisheriesSociety, Symposium 67, Bethesda, Maryland.

Loeb, H. A. 1958. A comparison of estimates of fish populations in lakes. New YorkFish and Game Journal 5:66-76.

Manfredo, M. J., Harris, C. C., and Brown, P. J.. 1983. The Social Values of an UrbanRecreational Fishing Experience. Proceedings of the Urban Fishing Symposiumof the Fisheries Management and Fisheries Administrators sections of theAmerican Fisheries Society. Pp. 118-131.

Ney, J. J. 1993. Practical Use of Biological Statistics. Pages 137-158 in Kohler andHubert 1993.

Nielsen, L. A. and D. L. Johnson. 1983. Fisheries Techniques. American FisheriesSociety, Bethesda, Maryland.

Norville, N. L. 1961. Manual and Survey on Small Lake Management; Recreation thatPays its Way. Bulletin No. 8. American Institute of Park Executives, Inc.


27

Novinger , G. D. and R. L. Legler, 1978. Bluegill population structure Pages - in G.D.Novinger and J.G. Dillard, eds. New approaches to the management of smallimpoundments. N. CentralDiv. Am. Fish. Soc., Spec. Pub. No. 5.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. 1997 Biological and Water QualityStudy of the Rocky River and Selected Tributaries. OEPA Technical ReportMAS/1998-12-3

Patterson, R. 1983. Using the Media to Improve Urban Fishing. Proceedingsof the Urban Fishing Symposium of the Fisheries Management and FisheriesAdministrators sections of the American Fisheries Society. Pg. 293.

Reynolds, J. B. 1983. Electrofishing. Pages 147-163 in Nielsen and Johnson 1983.

Schedler, T. R. and Haynes, J. A... 1983. Organization and Implementation of FishingDerbies and Clinics. Proceedings of the Urban Fishing Symposium of theFisheries Management and Fisheries Administrators sections of the AmericanFisheries Society. Pp. 118-131.

Smith-Root, Inc. 2007. User’s Manual: GPP 2.5, 5.0, 7.5, and 9.0 Portable Electrofishers.Vancouver, WA.

Wege, G. J. and R. O. Anderson. 1978. Relative weight (Wr): a new index of conditionfor largemouth bass. Pages 79-91 in G. D. Novinger and J. G. Dillard, editors.New approaches to the management of small impoundments. American FisheriesSociety, North Central Division, Special Publication 5, Bethesda, Maryland.

Weithman, A. S. 1993. Socioeconomics Benefits of Fisheries. Pages 159-175 in Kohlerand Hubert 1993.

Wetzel, R. (1983). Limnology. Philadelphia: Saunders.

Witt, A., Jr., and R. S. Campbell. 1959. Refinements of equipment and procedures inelecrofishing. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 88:33-35.


28


29

Table 2. Basic characteristics of largemouth bass and bluegill/pumpkinseed sunfishpopulations based on 23 June 2010 assessment (sampling time = 110 minutes)Species Total

NumberTotal

Weight (kg)Average Size

(mm)AverageRelativeWeight(Wr)1

Largemouthbass

Bluegill andPumpkinseed

64

102

15.73

3.93

258.4

123.3

86.4

90.31 As outlined in Wege and Anderson 1978 and Anderson and Gutreuter 1983.

Table 3. Predator (largemouth bass) and prey (bluegill and pumpkinseed sunfish)proportional stock density informationSpecies > Stock Size1 > Quality Size1 Proportional

Stock Density(%)

Largemouth bass 56 16 28.56

Bluegill andPumpkinseed 93 20 21.50

1 Designations per Gablehouse 1983.


30


31

Figure 2. Length/Frequency of Largemouth Bass

012345678

90-99

110-1

19

130-1

39

150-1

59

170-1

79

190-1

99

210-2

19

230-2

39

250-2

59

270-2

79

290-2

99

310-3

19

330-3

39

350-3

59

370-3

79

390-3

99

410-4

19

430-4

39

Length Range (mm)

Freq

uenc

y

Figure 3. Length/Frequency of Bluegill and Pumkinseed Sunfish

0

2

4

6

8

10

65-70

71-75

81-85

91-95

101-1

05

111-1

15

121-1

25

131-1

35

141-1

45

151-1

55

161-1

65

171-1

75

181-1

85

191-1

95

201-2

05

211-2

15

221-2

25

Length Range (mm)

Freq

uenc

y


32

Figure 4. Total Quality (TQ) Plot for Largemouth Bass (Predator) and Bluegill/Pumpkinseed (Prey)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

Predator PSD

Prey

PSD

= Intersection of observed Predator and Prey PSDs.


33

APPENDIX A:2010 Spring Childrens’ Fishing Derbies Statistics


34


35

APPENDIX B:Fish Population Assessment Data Sheets

23 June 2010 (four pages)


36


37


38


39

NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN: WALLACE LAKE, …

Documents

Transcript of NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN: WALLACE LAKE, …